Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: Townhallsavoy on April 12, 2012, 12:00:55 PM
-
Ann Romney cut to the heart of the flap over what Hilary Rosen said about the candidate's wife never having worked "a day in her life" in a Fox News interview this morning, saying, "We need to respect choices that women make."
Rosen, a Democratic strategist, made the comment on CNN last night, adding that Ann Romney has "never really dealt with the kind of economic issues that a majority of women in the country are facing."
The clear idea was to highlight that Ann Romney has had different experiences as someone whose husband was a high income earner - but the remark ended up sounding like an attack on non-working moms that devalued the intensity of raising kids.
"She should have come to my house when those five boys were causing so much trouble," chuckled Ann Romney, when asked her gut reaction to the comment. "It wasn't so easy."
She added, "This is what's so interesting about this. My career choice was to be a mother....we need to respect choices that women make. Other women make a choice to (have careers and motherhood)... I think Hilary did that (as well)...I respect that, that's wonderful. There's other people that have a choice."
The line about choices is one that Democrats often point to as they have slammed Republicans on issues like contraception and abortion.
She added, "Lemme give a shoutout to all the dads at home raising kids...this is obviously an awesome responsibility to raise children."
When asked point blank about the suggestion that she couldn't relate to the struggles of working women, or working class woen, she said, "Look, I know what it's like to struggle and if maybe I haven't struggled as much financially as much as some people have, I can tell you and promise you that I've had struggles in my life....Mitt and I have compassion for people that are struggling and that's why we're running. We care about people that are struggling ."
It was a reference, at least in part, to her health struggles with MS and breast cancer.
She pointed to the number of times her husband would tell her, "Ann your job is more important than mine....he would say, my job is temporary...your job is a forever job."
She added, "Mitt reespects women that makes those different choices...Hilary needs to knwo this because I've been on the campaign trail for one year and guess what women are talking about....they're talking about jobs and they'ree talking about the legacy of debt that we're leaving our children."
As for the suggestion that Romney doesn't understand women's problems, she said, "That does bother me. That is not correct at all. You should see how many women he listens to and that's what I love about mitt. He has so many women in his circle. ... Mitt Romney is a person that admires women and listens to them and I am grateful that he listens to me" as she talks about what women care about.
Of the polling gap with President Obama among women, she said, "It's just too early...people haven't had a chance to listen to us or hear us."
Romney, she said, is a "can-do guy that's been able to turn things around in his life."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/04/ann-romney-we-need-to-respect-choices-that-women-make-120328.html (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/04/ann-romney-we-need-to-respect-choices-that-women-make-120328.html)
-
Fuck Hilary Rosen in the mouth.
This mommy part was the former head of the RIAA that started this piracy witch hunt.
Let alone the obvious irony of the strategist that coined the phrase "War on Women" is saying shit like this now.
Michelle Obama agrees (https://twitter.com/#!/MichelleObama/status/190469503161860096).
-
Spare her, Chizad. Spare her your faux anger.
(CNN) -- My Twitter feed was on fire after an appearance Wednesday night on CNN's AC360, where I said that I thought it was wrong for Mitt Romney to be using his wife as his guide to women's economic struggles when she "had never worked a day in her life."
Democrat's comment about Ann Romney creates Twitter firestorm
Oh my, you should read the tweets and the hate mail I got after that. The accusations were flying. I don't know what it means to be a mom (I have 2 children). I obviously don't value the work that a mother does and how hard it is (the hardest job I have ever had); and I absolutely hate anyone who doesn't have the same views as I do (hate is a strong word).
Spare me the faux anger from the right who view the issue of women's rights and advancement as a way to score political points. When it comes to supporting policies that would actually help women, their silence has been deafening. I don't need lectures from the RNC on supporting women and fighting to increase opportunities for women; I've been doing it my whole career.
If they want to attack me and distract the public's attention away from their nominee's woeful record, it just demonstrates how much they just don't get it.
My favorite tweet was from someone who said that Republicans like Ann Romney so much more than Mitt that by attacking her (which I didn't), I got people to defend him in a way they never would. That last one, I can actually understand.
Now let's be clear on one thing. I have no judgments about women who work outside the home vs. women who work in the home raising a family. I admire women who can stay home and raise their kids full time. I even envy them sometimes. It is a wonderful luxury to have the choice. But let's stipulate that it is not a choice that most women have in America today.
Why does this even matter? It matters purely because Mitt Romney put the issue of his wife's views squarely on the table.
As Ruth Marcus noted in her column yesterday in the Washington Post, Romney, when asked last week about the gender gap, twice said he wished his wife could take the question.
"My wife has the occasion, as you know, to campaign on her own and also with me," Romney told newspaper editors, "and she reports to me regularly that the issue women care about most is the economy."
So it begs the question, is Ann Romney Mitt's touchstone for women who are struggling economically or not? Nothing in Ann Romney's history as we have heard it -- hardworking mom she may have been -- leads me to believe that Mitt has chosen the right expert to get feedback on this problem he professes to be so concerned about.
I have nothing against Ann Romney. She seems like a nice lady who has raised nice boys, struggled with illness and handles its long-term effects with grace and dignity. I admire her grit in talking about her illness publicly.
What is more important to me and 57% of current women voters is her husband saying he supports women's economic issues because they are the only issues that matter to us and then he fails on even those.
Let's put aside for a moment his views on women's health issues -- such as his pledge to repeal funding for Planned Parenthood or repeal Title X -- which provides important health services for poor women, and true anecdotes (such as when he was a Bishop in his church, he actually went to a congregant's hospital room and told a young single mother who had just given birth that she was shaming the church and should give her baby away). Let's put those issues of respect and health dignity away.
Let's just focus on his economic record on behalf of women. When Romney ran Bain Capital, less than 10% of the senior workforce were women. And he said in his 1994 Senate race that it was because he had trouble finding qualified women to be executives. Is there a woman alive who believes that?
I personally believe that women hate the way our health issues were made a political football by the Republicans in the last several months. But I am pragmatic enough to believe that the economic issues do matter greatly to women and men alike. But the only way that Mitt Romney will succeed in closing the wide gender gap between him and President Obama is if he stops pretending that it doesn't exist.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/12/opinion/ann-romney-hilary-rosen/index.html?hpt=hp_c1 (http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/12/opinion/ann-romney-hilary-rosen/index.html?hpt=hp_c1)
-
Fuck Hilary Rosen in the mouth.
This mommy part was the former head of the RIAA that started this piracy witch hunt.
Let alone the obvious irony of the strategist that coined the phrase "War on Women" is saying shit like this now.
Michelle Obama agrees (https://twitter.com/#!/MichelleObama/status/190469503161860096).
You're just pissed cause your pirating case is about to come up on the docket.
-
Fuck Hilary Rosen in the mouth.
This mommy part was the former head of the RIAA that started this piracy witch hunt.
Let alone the obvious irony of the strategist that coined the phrase "War on Women" is saying shit like this now.
Michelle Obama agrees (https://twitter.com/#!/MichelleObama/status/190469503161860096).
So....this means you are voting for Romney, right?
-
Your just pissed cause your pirating case is about to come up on the docket.
Well HELLO, swashbuckler...
-
Oh, and another reason to hate her.
She left the RIAA to make a career out of helping BP confuse the public as their PR shill after the Gulf disaster.
-
Oh, and another reason to hate her.
She left the RIAA to make a career out of helping BP confuse the public as their PR shill after the Gulf disaster.
Actually, that one gives her points in my book...
-
Actually, that one gives her points in my book...
You are a cartoon villain.
-
Oh, and another reason to hate her.
She left the RIAA to make a career out of helping BP confuse the public as their PR shill after the Gulf disaster.
What did she do to confuse the public about the "disaster".
-
You are a cartoon villain.
Coming from an ignorant, know-everything twirp, that's likely a positive... Tell me about those mean-old, bad-old corporations like BP. And, how dare the RIAA have an issue with your illegal downloading of music and movies! Your criminal activities are non of their business.
-
What did she do to confuse the public about the "disaster".
Sorry, would you prefer the BP Gulf "enhancement"?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704032704575268790823002422.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704032704575268790823002422.html)
After the spill, the company brought on crisis communicator Hilary Rosen, former Democratic congressional staffer, former chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America, and a current editor-at-large for HuffingtonPost.com. Ms. Rosen heads the Washington-based office of U.K. communications firm the Brunswick Group. Public records are not yet available on the new Brunswick contract. Ms. Rosen declined to be interviewed on the record.
-
Coming from an ignorant, know-everything twirp, that's likely a positive... Tell me about those mean-old, bad-old corporations like BP. And, how dare the RIAA have an issue with your illegal downloading of music and movies! Your criminal activities are non of their business.
You and this uber-liberal lesbian seem to have a lot in common.
-
Sorry, would you prefer the BP Gulf "enhancement"?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704032704575268790823002422.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704032704575268790823002422.html)
Whatever you want to call it...can I get a cliff's version of what she did to confuse the public?
-
You and this uber-liberal lesbian seem to have a lot in common.
You do realize that I'm a male lesbian, right?
-
You do realize that I'm a male lesbian, right?
Your anger with beta males just proves you are a fag, cause your daddy touched your ding dong too many times. Ya queer....
-
Apparently MS. Rosen just offered a politically-motivated, non-apology, apology to Anne Romney:
Hilary Rosen Apologizes To Ann Romney, Calls For End To 'Faux War' Against Moms
Posted: 04/12/2012 2:35 pm Updated: 04/12/2012 2:45 pm
WASHINGTON -- Less than 24 hours after it started, the faux war against stay-at-home moms appears to be coming to an end.
Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen on Thursday apologized to Ann Romney, wife of GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, for criticizing her for having "never worked a day in her life." Ann Romney has been a stay-at-home mom, raising her five children with Mitt.
"I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended," Rosen said in a statement. "Let's declare peace in this phony war and go back to focus on the substance."
...
Full story:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/12/hilary-rosen-ann-romney_n_1420990.html?ref=elections-2012 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/12/hilary-rosen-ann-romney_n_1420990.html?ref=elections-2012)
-
Whatever you want to call it...can I get a cliff's version of what she did to confuse the public?
http://priceofoil.org/2010/06/17/it%E2%80%99s-time-for-the-truth-tony/ (http://priceofoil.org/2010/06/17/it%E2%80%99s-time-for-the-truth-tony/)
Hayward has apparently been practicing in front of a so-called “murder board” of a dozen-strong group of lawyers and public relations advisers who have been simulating the aggressive questions Hayward is likely to face.
Unlike the chaos in the Gulf, everything is being staged managed. Hayward is apparently being advised on every detail about the appearance — including his posture and his choice of shirt and tie.
Top among those advising him are the spin-doctor Hilary Rosen, managing partner of the Washington office of Brunswick, BP’s public relations firm.
Apparently Hayward will “attempt to spread blame for disaster.”
He is expected to say: “This is a complex accident, caused by an unprecedented combination of failures. A number of companies are involved, including BP, and it is simply too early to understand the cause.”
The trouble is that BP has been trying to shift the blame for the accident from day one. Now is the time to stop the lies, the misinformation and come clean.
The Gulf residents, the American people and the wider world need to know the answers to numerous questions, including:
• Whether there was financial pressure on BP to plug the Deepwater well, as documents show drilling was running late?
• Why was safety compromised with risky procedures on the well design, and not using enough centrilisers?
• Why were standard industry procedures abandoned such as not undertaking a cent bond log, a bottoms up or an adequate lock-down sleeve?
• Why did his own staff call Deepwater a “nightmare well”?
• Why has BP consistently lied or misinformed about the size of the spill? What it their estimate about the amount of oil that has been spilled? Some estimates now put the maximum of oil spilled at 116 million gallons. That is ten times the Exxon Valdez.
• Why has BP consistently tried to hide the damage being done in the Gulf, from banning journalists and photographers from sensitive sites, to destroying evidence?
• Why have BP’s call centres been described by people who work for them as “a diversion” to stop people getting the truth?
• Why has BP tried to downplay the ecological impact of the spill – from crass comments about small drops in the ocean to denying plumes under water.
• Why has it not adequately protected the clean-up workers?
• Why has BP been trying to manipulate the internet by buying up search engines?
Anyway those are ten questions to start with. And we would like the truth for each and every one…
And how about two more. As Janice a worker at a BP call centre, said: “We’re a diversion to stop them from really getting to the corporate office, to the big people.”
So why do BP management see themselves as the “big people” and everyone else “small”?
And how much did corporate arrogance play a part in the spill?
-
http://priceofoil.org/2010/06/17/it%E2%80%99s-time-for-the-truth-tony/ (http://priceofoil.org/2010/06/17/it%E2%80%99s-time-for-the-truth-tony/)
Wow... So, here's an ultra-Liberal puke being attacked by a fellow ultra-Liberal enviro-moron website, http://BlameAmerikunOil.com/ (http://priceofoil.org/). Doesn't happen too often, but it's funny when it does.
-
Wow... So, here's an ultra-Liberal puke being attacked by a fellow ultra-Liberal enviro-moron website, http://BlameAmerikunOil.com/ (http://priceofoil.org/). Doesn't happen too often, but it's funny when it does.
That is amusing. I was reading the bios of the Staff of "BlameAmerikunOil dot com" and not surprised to find their backgrounds in "Friends of the Earth" (weren't they the terrorist organization that was spiking trees in Pacific NW?), Greenpeace International, Greenpeace UK, UN Framework on Global Climate Change, Montreal Protocol, EarthRights Intl., etc. I'm sure these folk have absolutely no agenda in discrediting Ms. Rosen or BP.
-
That is amusing. I was reading the bios of the Staff of "BlameAmerikunOil dot com" and not surprised to find their backgrounds in "Friends of the Earth" (weren't they the terrorist organization that was spiking trees in Pacific NW?), Greenpeace International, Greenpeace UK, UN Framework on Global Climate Change, Montreal Protocol, EarthRights Intl., etc. I'm sure these folk have absolutely no agenda in discrediting Ms. Rosen or BP.
Well, trees have feelings too! You damn fascist!!!
http://www.youtube.com/v/A_JPcBwYGmo
-
Well, trees have feelings too! You damn fascist!!!
...
Occupy The Forest!
-
Well, trees have feelings too! You damn fascist!!!
...
Die Hippie, Die!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103809/hippie-infestation (http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103809/hippie-infestation)
-
Die Hippie, Die!
...
And, if you don't deal with it quickly...
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154822/college-know-it-all-hippies (http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154822/college-know-it-all-hippies)
<Followed closely by the AUJizzAss types...>
-
Comical that she releases the apology after Biden calls her comment outrageous.
-
And, if you don't deal with it quickly...
...
<Followed closely by the AUJizzAss types...>
The college-know-it-all-hippie with the guitar somewhat resembles a cartoon Chiz. :thumsup:
I could not help but laugh at the bumper stickers on the car; the little "Darwin-ized" Christian fish symbol and a sticker reading: "MY KARMA RAN OVER YOUR DOGMA"
-
Comical that she releases the apology after Biden calls her comment outrageous.
Nevermind the fact that 50+% of what that moron says is equally outrageous...
-
The college-know-it-all-hippie with the guitar somewhat resembles a cartoon Chiz. :thumsup:
I could not help but laugh at the bumper stickers on the car; the little "Darwin-ized" Christian fish symbol and a sticker reading: "MY KARMA RAN OVER YOUR DOGMA"
Somewhat?
-
Somewhat?
I was trying to play nice; I didn't want to cause any hurt feelings.
-
Comical that she releases the apology after Biden calls her comment outrageous.
Slow Joe probably thinks the apology is due solely to his condemnation.
-
I was trying to play nice; I didn't want to cause any hurt feelings.
Fuck'em...
-
http://priceofoil.org/2010/06/17/it%E2%80%99s-time-for-the-truth-tony/ (http://priceofoil.org/2010/06/17/it%E2%80%99s-time-for-the-truth-tony/)
I bet you don't believe that thousands of barrels of oil seep naturally in to the oceans through the ocean floor every day. Oil is a naturally occurring substance, and nature is equipped to deal with it. But, if BP lets some loose, it's a "disaster" because the moonbats scream and holler that it is.
-
I bet you don't believe that thousands of barrels of oil seep naturally in to the oceans through the ocean floor every day. Oil is a naturally occurring substance, and nature is equipped to deal with it. But, if BP lets some loose, it's a "disaster" because the moonbats scream and holler that it is.
:facepalm:
Yeah, the beaches of the gulf were great to swim in that summer. The seafood industry really have just been a bunch of beta males these last two years...
-
:facepalm:
Yeah, the beaches of the gulf were great to swim in that summer. The seafood industry really have just been a bunch of beta males these last two years...
I figured facts wouldn't persuade you.
-
I figured facts wouldn't persuade you.
Look man, this might be Chizad. But he's our Chizad. You know how he works - and that is off feelings and emotion. Work with him here. We're all familiar.
-
I figured facts wouldn't persuade you.
Facts...Yeah...BP let "some" loose.
4.9 million barrels. About 205.8 million gallons.
Exactly as nature intended.
I want to ignore shit like this, but you people just invent your own reality some times, and then say I'm delusional. It's maddening.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill)
The spill is the "worst environmental disaster the US has faced", according to White House energy adviser Carol Browner.[242] Indeed, the spill was by far the largest in US history, almost 20 times greater than the Exxon Valdez oil spill.[243] Factors such as petroleum toxicity, oxygen depletion and the use of Corexit dispersant are expected to be the main causes of damage.[244][245] Eight U.S. national parks are threatened.[246] More than 400 species that live in the Gulf islands and marshlands are at risk, including the endangered Kemp's Ridley turtle, the Green Turtle, the Loggerhead Turtle, the Hawksbill Turtle, and the Leatherback Turtle. In the national refuges most at risk, about 34,000 birds have been counted, including gulls, pelicans, roseate spoonbills, egrets, terns, and blue herons.[72] A comprehensive 2009 inventory of offshore Gulf species counted 15,700. The area of the oil spill includes 8,332 species, including more than 1,200 fish, 200 birds, 1,400 molluscs, 1,500 crustaceans, 4 sea turtles, and 29 marine mammals.[247][248] As of November 2, 2010, 6,814 dead animals had been collected, including 6,104 birds, 609 sea turtles, 100 dolphins and other mammals, and 1 other reptile.[249][250] According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, cause of death had not been determined as of late June. According to NOAA, since January 1, 2011, 67 dead dolphins have been found in the area affected by the oil spill, with 35 of them premature or newborn calves. The cause is under investigation.[251]
In May 2010, Duke University marine biologist Larry Crowder said threatened loggerhead turtles on Carolina beaches could swim out into contaminated waters. Ninety percent of North Carolina's commercially valuable sea life spawn off the coast and could be contaminated if oil reaches the area. Douglas Rader, a scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, said prey could be negatively affected as well. Steve Ross of UNC-Wilmington said coral reefs could be smothered.[252] In early June Harry Roberts, a professor of Coastal Studies at Louisiana State University, stated that 4,000,000 barrels (640,000 m3) of oil would be enough to "wipe out marine life deep at sea near the leak and elsewhere in the Gulf" as well as "along hundreds of miles of coastline." Mak Saito, an Associate Scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts indicated that such an amount of oil "may alter the chemistry of the sea, with unforeseeable results."[253] Samantha Joye of the University of Georgia indicated that the oil could harm fish directly, and microbes used to consume the oil would also reduce oxygen levels in the water.[254] According to Joye, the ecosystem could require years or even decades to recover, as previous spills have done.[255] Oceanographer John Kessler estimated that the crude gushing from the well contained approximately 40% methane by weight, compared to about 5% found in typical oil deposits.[256] Methane could potentially suffocate marine life and create dead zones where oxygen is depleted.[256] Also oceanographer Dr. Ian MacDonald at Florida State University believes that the natural gas dissolving below the surface has the potential to reduce the Gulf oxygen levels and emit benzene and other toxic compounds.[69][257] In early July, researchers discovered two new previously unidentified species of bottom-dwelling pancake batfish of the Halieutichthys genus, in the area affected by the oil spill.[258] Damage to the ocean floor is yet unknown.[227] In particular was the Louisiana pancake batfish, whose range is entirely contained within the area affected by the spill.[259]
In late July 2010, Tulane University scientists found signs of an oil-and-dispersant mix under the shells of tiny blue crab larvae in the Gulf, indicating that the use of dispersants had broken the oil into droplets small enough to easily enter the food chain. Marine biologists from the University of Southern Mississippi's Gulf Coast Research Laboratory found "orange blobs" under the shells of crab larvae "in almost all" of the larvae they collected from over 300 miles (480 km) of coastline stretching from Grand Isle, Louisiana, to Pensacola, Florida.[245]
On September 29, 2010, Oregon State University researchers announced the oil spill waters contain carcinogens. The team had found sharply heightened levels of chemicals in the waters off the coast of Louisiana in August, the last sampling date, even after BP successfully capped its well in mid-July. Near Grand Isle, Louisiana, the team discovered that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or PAHs, which are often linked to oil spills and include carcinogens and chemicals that pose various risks to human health, remained at levels 40 times higher than before the oil spill. Researchers said the compounds may enter the food chain through organisms like plankton or fish. The PAH chemicals are most concentrated in the area near the Louisiana Coast, but levels have also jumped 2 to 3 fold in other spill-affected areas off Alabama, Mississippi and Florida. As of August, PAH levels remained near those discovered while the oil spill was still flowing heavily.[260] Kim Anderson, an OSU professor of environmental and molecular toxicology, said that based on the findings of other researchers, she suspects that the abundant use of dispersants by BP increased the bioavailability of the PAHs in this case. "There was a huge increase of PAHs that are bio-available to the organisms – and that means they can essentially be uptaken by organisms throughout the food chain." Anderson added that exactly how many of these toxic compounds ended up in the food chain was beyond her area of research.[261]
On October 22, 2010, it was reported that miles-long strings of weathered oil had been sighted moving toward marshes on the Mississippi River delta. Hundreds of thousands of migrating ducks and geese spend the winter in this delta.[262]
Researchers reported in early November 2010 that toxic chemicals at levels high enough to kill sea animals extended deep underwater soon after the BP oil spill. Terry Wade of Texas A&M University, Steven Lohrenz of the University of Southern Mississippi and Stennis Space Center found evidence of the chemicals as deep as 3,300 feet (1,000 m) and as far away as 8 miles (13 km) in May, and say the spread likely worsened as more oil spilled. The chemicals (PAHs), they said, can kill animals right away in high enough concentrations and can cause cancer over time. "From the time that these observations were made, there was an extensive release of additional oil and dispersants at the site. Therefore, the effects on the deep sea ecosystem may be considerably more severe than supported by the observations reported here," the researchers wrote in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. They added that PAHs include a group of compounds, and different types were at different depths, and said "It is possible they dissipate quickly, but no one has yet showed this".[263]
In November 2010, federally funded scientists found damage to deep sea coral several miles from BP's Macondo well. While tests are needed to verify that the coral died from the well, expedition leader Charles Fisher, a biologist with Penn State University, said, "There is an abundance of circumstantial data that suggests that what happened is related to the recent oil spill." According to the Associated Press, this discovery indicated that the spill's ecological consequences may be greater than what officials have said. Previous federal teams have stated that they found no damage on the ocean floor.[264] "We have never seen anything like this," Fisher added. "The visual data for recent and ongoing death are crystal clear and consistent over at least 30 colonies; the site is close to the Deepwater Horizon; the research site is at the right depth and direction to have been impacted by a deep-water plume, based on NOAA models and empirical data; and the impact was detected only a few months after the spill was contained."[265]
A Coast Guard report released on December 17, 2010, said that little oil remained on the sea floor except within a mile and a half of the well. The report said that since August 3, only 1% of water and sediment samples had pollution above EPA-recommended limits. Charlie Henry of NOAA warned even small amounts of oil could cause "latent, long-term chronic effects". And Ian R. MacDonald of Florida State University said even where the government claimed to find little oil, "We went to the same place and saw a lot of oil. In our samples, we found abundant dead animals."[266]
In February 2011, the first birthing season for dolphins since the spill, the director of the Institute for Marine Mammal Studies in Gulfport reported that dead baby dolphins were washing up along the Mississippi and Alabama shorelines at about 10 times the normal number for the first two months of the year. "For some reason, they’ve started aborting or they were dead before they were born; the average is one or two a month. This year we have 17 and February isn’t even over yet.” It is not yet certain if the deaths are related to the oil spill.[267]
From mid-January to late March 2011, scientists counted almost 200 dead dolphins in the Gulf, with another 90 in 2010. After investigating the deaths, NOAA put a gag order on the results, saying that the research is part of a criminal investigation of the oil spill. Numerous independent scientists said they have been "personally rebuked by federal officials for speaking out of turn to the media about efforts to determine the cause" of the deaths.[268] A study published in the journal Conservation Letters[269] showed the actual number of mammal deaths due to the spill may be as much as 50 times higher than the number of recovered carcasses. "The Deepwater oil spill was the largest in US history, however, the recorded impact on wildlife was relatively low, leading to suggestions that the environmental damage of the disaster was actually modest. This is because reports have implied that the number of carcasses recovered... equals the number of animals killed by the spill." said Rob Williams from the University of British Columbia.[270]
In April 2011, one year from the onset of the spill, scientists confirmed that they had discovered oil on dead dolphins found along the Gulf Coast. Fifteen of the 406 dolphins that had washed ashore in the last 14 months had oil on their bodies; the oil found on eight of them was linked to the April 2010 BP oil spill. A NOAA spokesperson stated,"It is significant that even a year after the oil spill we are finding oil on the dolphins, the latest just two weeks ago."[271]
[edit] Fisheries
June 21, 2010 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration map of the Gulf of Mexico showing the areas closed to fishing.
As of June 21, 2010, the area closed to fishing encompassed 86,985 square miles (225,290 km²), or about 36% of Gulf of Mexico federal waters.
In BP's Initial Exploration Plan, dated March 10, 2009, it said that "it is unlikely that an accidental spill would occur" and "no adverse activities are anticipated" to fisheries or fish habitat.[45] On April 29, 2010, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal declared a state of emergency in the state after weather forecasts predicted the oil slick would reach the Louisiana coast.[272] An emergency shrimping season was opened on April 29 so that a catch could be brought in before the oil advanced too far.[273] By April 30, the Coast Guard received reports that oil had begun washing up to wildlife refuges and seafood grounds on the Louisiana Gulf Coast.[274] On May 22, The Louisiana Seafood Promotion and Marketing Board stated said 60 to 70% of oyster and blue crab harvesting areas and 70 to 80% of fin-fisheries remained open.[275] The Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals closed an additional ten oyster beds on May 23, just south of Lafayette, Louisiana, citing confirmed reports of oil along the state's western coast.[276]
On May 2, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration closed commercial and recreational fishing in affected federal waters between the mouth of the Mississippi River and Pensacola Bay. The closure initially incorporated 6,814 square miles (17,650 km²).[277][278] By June 21, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had increased the area under closure over a dozen times, encompassing by that date 86,985 square miles (225,290 km²), or approximately 36% of Federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico, and extending along the coast from Atchafalaya Bay, Louisiana to Panama City, Florida.[279][280] On May 24, the federal government declared a fisheries disaster for the states of Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana.[281] Initial cost estimates to the fishing industry were $2.5 billion.[274]
On June 23, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ended its fishing ban in 8,000 square miles (21,000 km²), leaving 78,597 square miles (203,570 km²) with no fishing allowed,[282] or about one-third of the Gulf. The continued fishing ban helps assure the safety of seafood, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration inspectors have determined that as of July 9, Kevin Griffis of the Commerce Department said, only one seafood sample out of 400 tested did not pass, though even that one did not include "concerning levels of contaminants".[283] On August 10, Jane Lubchenco of NOAA said no one had seen oil in a 8,000 square miles (21,000 km2) area east of Pensacola since July 3, so the fishing ban in that area was being lifted.[284]
On August 31, a Boston lab hired by the United Commercial Fishermen's Association to analyze coastal fishing waters said it found dispersant in a seafood sample taken near Biloxi, Miss., almost a month after BP said it had stopped using the chemical.[285]
According to the European Space Agency, the agency's satellite data was used by the Ocean Foundation to conclude that 20% of the juvenile bluefin tuna were killed by oil in the gulf's most important spawning area. The foundation combined satellite data showing the oil spill extent each week with data on weekly tuna spawning to make their conclusion. The agency also said that the loss of juvenile tuna was significant due to the 82% decline of the tuna's spawning stock in the western Atlantic during the 30 years before the oil spill.[286]
The waters had been reopened to fishing on November 15, 2010,[287] but on November 24 NOAA re-closed 4,200 square miles (11,000 km²) area to shrimping.[288] A Florida TV station sent frozen Gulf shrimp to be tested for petroleum by-products after recent reports showed scientists disagreed on whether it is safe to eat after the oil spill.[289] A private lab found levels of Anthracene, a toxic hydrocarbon and a by-product of petroleum, at twice the levels the FDA finds acceptable.[290][291] On April 20, NOAA reopened 1,041 square miles (2,700 km2) of Gulf waters immediately surrounding the Deepwater Horizon wellhead to commercial and recreational fishing of fish, oysters, crabs and shrimp after testing results found that 99 percent of samples contained no detectable dispersant residues or oil-related compounds, and the few samples that did contain residues showed levels more than 1000 times lower than FDA levels of concern. This is the twelfth and final reopening in federal waters since July 22, and opens all the formerly closed areas in Federal waters.[292]
In July 2011 BP released a report[293] claiming that the economy had recovered and there was no reason to believe that anyone would suffer future losses from the spill, with the limited exception of oyster harvesters. However, Bruce Guerra, a crab fisherman in Louisiana for 25 years, said that since the BP oil spill crabbers are trapping 75 percent fewer crabs and that "crabs have been coming up dead, discolored, or riddled with holes since last year's spill". Others in the fishing industry say it could take years to fully realize the spill's effects. "The problem is right when they used the dispersants, that's when the tuna came to the Gulf to spawn," said Cheril Carey, a national sales representative for a Louisiana company specializing in yellow fin tuna. "It takes a tuna five to 15 years to mature. So although we may have fish now, we may not have them in five to 15 years."[294]
[edit] Tourism
Although many people cancelled their vacations due to the spill, hotels close to the coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama reported dramatic increases in business during the first half of May 2010. However, the increase was likely due to the influx of people who had come to work with oil removal efforts. Jim Hutchinson, assistant secretary for the Louisiana Office of Tourism, called the occupancy numbers misleading, but not surprising. "Because of the oil slick, the hotels are completely full of people dealing with that problem," he said. "They're certainly not coming here as tourists. People aren't sport fishing, they aren't buying fuel at the marinas, they aren't staying at the little hotels on the coast and eating at the restaurants."[295]
On May 25, BP gave Florida $25 million to promote the beaches where the oil had not reached, and the company planned $15 million each for Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The Bay Area Tourist Development Council bought digital billboards showing recent photos from the gulf coast beaches as far north as Nashville, Tennessee and Atlanta. Along with assurances that the beaches were so far unaffected, hotels cut rates and offered deals such as free golf. Also, cancellation policies were changed, and refunds were promised to those where oil may have arrived. However, revenues remained below 2009 levels.[295][296]
The U.S. Travel Association estimated that the economic impact of the oil spill on tourism across the Gulf Coast over a three-year period could exceed approximately $23 billion, in a region that supports over 400,000 travel industry jobs generating $34 billion in revenue annually.[297][298]
On November 1, BP announced plans to spend $78 million to help Louisiana tourism and test and advertise seafood.[299]
[edit] Other economic consequences
On July 5, 2010, BP reported that its own expenditures on the oil spill had reached $3.12 billion, including the cost of the spill response, containment, relief well drilling, grants to the Gulf states, claims paid, and federal costs.[300] The United States Oil Pollution Act of 1990 limits BP's liability for non-cleanup costs to $75 million unless gross negligence is proven.[301] BP has said it would pay for all cleanup and remediation regardless of the statutory liability cap. Nevertheless, some Democratic lawmakers sought to pass legislation that would increase the liability limit to $10 billion.[302][303] Analysts for Swiss Re have estimated that the total insured losses from the accident could reach $3.5 billion. According to UBS, final losses could be $12 billion.[304] According to Willis Group Holdings, total losses could amount to $30 billion, of which estimated total claims to the market from the disaster, including control of well, re-drilling, third-party liability and seepage and pollution costs, could exceed $1.2 billion.[305]
On June 25, BP's market value reached a 1-year low. The company's total value lost since April 20 was $105 billion. Investors saw their holdings in BP shrink to $27.02, a nearly 54% loss of value in 2010.[306] A month later, the company's loss in market value totalled $60 billion, a 35% decline since the explosion. At that time, BP reported a second-quarter loss of $17 billion, its first loss in 18 years. This included a one-time $32.2 billion charge, including $20 billion for the fund created for reparations and $2.9 billion in actual costs.[307]
BP announced that it was setting up a new unit to oversee management of the oil spill and its aftermath, to be headed by former TNK-BP chief executive Robert Dudley,[308] who a month later was named CEO of BP.[307]
On October 1, BP pledged as collateral all royalties from the Thunder Horse, Atlantis, Mad Dog, Great White, Mars, Ursa, and Na Kika fields in the Gulf of Mexico. At that time, BP also said that it had spent $11.2 billion, while the company's London Stock Exchange price reached 439.75 pence, the highest point since May 28.[309]
By the end of September, BP reported that it had spent $11.2 billion. Third-quarter profit of $1.79 billion (compared to $5.3 billion in 2009) showed, however, that BP continued to do well and should be able to pay total costs estimated at $40 billion.[299]
BP gas stations, the majority of which the company does not own, reported sales off between 10 and 40% due to backlash against the company. Some BP station owners that lost sales said the name should change back to Amoco, while others said after all the effort that went into promoting BP, such a move would be a gamble, and the company should work to restore its image.[310]
Local officials in Louisiana expressed concern that the offshore drilling moratorium imposed in response to the spill would further harm the economies of coastal communities.[311] In a 2010 news story, The Christian Science Monitor reported, "The oil industry employs about 58,000 Louisiana residents and has created another 260,000 oil-related jobs, accounting for about 17% of all Louisiana jobs."[311] BP agreed to allocate $100 million for payments to offshore oil workers who were unemployed due to the six-month moratorium on drilling in the deep-water Gulf of Mexico.[140]
The real estate prices and a number of transactions in the Gulf of Mexico area decreased significantly during the period of the oil spill. As a result, area officials wanted the state legislature to allow property tax to be paid based on current market value, which according to State Rep. Dave Murzin could mean millions of dollars in losses for each county affected.[312]
The Organization for International Investment, a Washington-based advocate for overseas investment into the U.S., warned in early July that the political rhetoric surrounding the disaster was potentially damaging the reputation of all British companies with operations in the U.S.[313] and sparked a wave of U.S. protectionism that restricted British firms from winning government contracts, making political donations and lobbying.
Health consequences
On May 29, 2010, ten oil spill clean-up workers had been admitted to West Jefferson Medical Center in Marrero, Louisiana. All but two had been hospitalized suffering from symptoms emergency room doctors diagnosed as dehydration. At a press briefing about the May 26 medical evacuation of seven crewmembers from Vessels of Opportunity working in the Breton Sound area, Coast Guard Captain Meredith Austin, Unified Command Deputy Incident Commander in Houma, LA, said that air monitoring done before beginning work showed no volatile organic compounds above limits of concern. No respiratory protection was issued, said Austin "because air ratings were taken and there were no values found to be at an unsafe level, prior to us sending them in there."[323]
On June 15, Marylee Orr, Executive Director for Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN),[324] said on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann that people along the Gulf Coast were getting very sick, with symptoms of dizziness, vomiting, nausea, headaches, and chest pains, not only from the first responders to the crisis, but residents living along the coast as well. LEAN's director reported that BP had threatened to fire their workers if they used respirators distributed by LEAN, though health and safety officials had not required their use, as they may exacerbate risks of heat exhaustion.[325][326] By June 21, 143 oil spill exposure cases had been reported to the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH) since the crisis began; 108 of those cases involved workers in the oil spill clean-up efforts, while thirty-five were reported by the general public.[327]
The Institute of Medicine of the U. S. National Academies held a workshop to assess known health effects of this and previous oil spills and to coordinate epidemiological monitoring and ongoing medical research. The Louisiana state health officer Jimmy Guidry stated that need as: “This is more than a spill. This is ongoing leakage of a chemical, and adding chemicals to stop the chemicals. We're feeling like we're in a research lab."[328][329] On the second day of the meeting the suicide of William Allen Kruse, a charter boat captain working as a BP clean-up worker,[330] intensified previous expert commentary on the current and likely long-term mental health effects of the ongoing crisis. David Abramson, director of research for Columbia's National Center for Disaster Preparedness, noted the increased risk of mental disorders and stress-related health problems.[331][332] On August 10, the Institute of Medicine released a Workshop Summary: Assessing the Effects of the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill on Human Health.
Chemicals from the oil and dispersant are believed to be the cause of illness reported by people who live along the Gulf of Mexico. According to chemist Bob Naman, the addition of dispersants created an even more toxic substance when mixed with crude oil. According to Naman, poly-aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are making people sick. PAHs contain compounds that have been identified as carcinogenic, mutagenic, and teratogenic. "The dispersants are being added to the water and are causing chemical compounds to become water soluble, which is then given off into the air, so it is coming down as rain, in addition to being in the water and beaches of these areas of the Gulf," Naman said, and added "I’m scared of what I'm finding. These cyclic compounds intermingle with the Corexit dispersant and generate other cyclic compounds that aren't good. Many have double bonds, and many are on the EPA's danger list. This is an unprecedented environmental catastrophe." Dr. Riki Ott has been working with oil-spill related illness since the Exxon Valdez. She is working in the Gulf and says: "People are already dying from this... I’m dealing with three autopsies' right now. I don’t think we’ll have to wait years to see the effects like we did in Alaska, people are dropping dead now. I know two people who are down to 4.75 per cent of their lung capacity, their heart has enlarged to make up for that, and their esophagus is disintegrating, and one of them is a 16-year-old boy who went swimming in the Gulf."[333][334] According to Mississippi Riverkeeper of the Waterkeeper Alliance, blood samples from eight individuals from Florida (Pensacola) and Alabama, male and female, residents and BP cleanup workers “were analyzed for volatile solvents and all came back with ethylbenzene and m,p-xylene in excess of 95th percentile values of 0.11 ppb for ethylbenzene and 0.34 ppb for m,p-xylene.” The highest concentration value was four times the 95th percentile. “The blood of all three females and five males had chemicals that are found in the BP crude oil”, the report went on to say.[335]
Blah blah blah, hippies, blah blah blah, "feelings", blah blah beta blah blah.
-
Facts...Yeah...BP let "some" loose.
4.9 million barrels. About 205.8 million gallons.
Exactly as nature intended.
I want to ignore shit like this, but you people just invent your own reality some times, and then say I'm delusional. It's maddening.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill)
Blah blah blah, hippies, blah blah blah, "feelings", blah blah beta blah blah.
To play a little devil's advocate, the words "worst disaster in US history" was coined by a WH Energy Adviser. That's like a WH Economic Adviser saying Obamacare would save us money when every other economist on Earth that is halfway objective said otherwise. I think the spill was bad, but nothing like they made it out to be. It was cleaned up much better than many thought it ever would be. This happened via lack of oversight of existing rules and inspections for deep water rigs, by both the Bush and Obama administrations which flows from the top down. Of course there had to be a scapegoat, so the admin promptly aimed at the Dept of MMS Chairwoman (in charge of enforcing rules for these shelf rigs) and BP. If you are looking for a true root cause and not just a symptom, then you need to look squarely at the govt. BP's shenanigans were merely a symptom of the "Cat's away, the mice will play". They were allowed to be negligent when they should not have been.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/27/AR2010052703302.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/27/AR2010052703302.html)
-
Facts...Yeah...BP let "some" loose.
4.9 million barrels. About 205.8 million gallons.
Exactly as nature intended.
I want to ignore shit like this, but you people just invent your own reality some times, and then say I'm delusional. It's maddening.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill)
Blah blah blah, hippies, blah blah blah, "feelings", blah blah beta blah blah.
You actually do ignore shit like this: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=20863 (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=20863)
Twice an Exxon Valdez spill worth of oil seeps into the Gulf of Mexico every year, according to a new study that will be presented January 27 at the Ocean Sciences Meeting in San Antonio, Texas.
But the oil isn't destroying habitats or wiping out ocean life. The ooze is a natural phenomena that's been going on for many thousands of years, according to Roger Mitchell, Vice President of Program Development at the Earth Satellite Corporation (EarthSat) in Rockville Md. "The wildlife have adapted and evolved and have no problem dealing with the oil," he said.
Oil that finds its way to the surface from natural seeps gets broken down by bacteria and ends up as carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas.
And this: http://www.mysanantonio.com/life/life_columnists/article/Natural-leaks-emit-oil-into-the-Gulf-of-Mexico-778985.php (http://www.mysanantonio.com/life/life_columnists/article/Natural-leaks-emit-oil-into-the-Gulf-of-Mexico-778985.php)
In 1973, the Texas A&M group published a report that related early accounts of natural oil seepage in the Gulf. For example, the Karankawas along the Texas coast used tar washed up on beaches to line their baskets and pots. The men of the de Soto expedition used tar to caulk some of their boats.
The report noted that charts issued by the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey from 1902 to 1909 depicted significant oil slicks 100 miles south of the Louisiana coast. In 1909, a plume of oil was reported to be spouting into the air from near the Texas-Louisiana coast and ponds of floating oil were reported off Sabine Pass.
Natural oil seeps still exist in the Gulf, and you can sometimes see evidence of them along Padre Island in the form of small lumps and larger pads of sticky, black goo. This is the tar left behind after oil seeping from the floor of the Gulf floats to the surface, where its volatile compounds quickly evaporate.
Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/life/life_columnists/article/Natural-leaks-emit-oil-into-the-Gulf-of-Mexico-778985.php#ixzz1rvfbymiC (http://www.mysanantonio.com/life/life_columnists/article/Natural-leaks-emit-oil-into-the-Gulf-of-Mexico-778985.php#ixzz1rvfbymiC)
God made oil, not man. It's part of our environment. That is not to say it can't cause damage or that man needs to be releasing more in to the environment than God intended, but nature has a way to deal with it. It would be ideal if BP or Exxon wouldn't spill extra in to the oceans or Gulf. Is there an negative impact on the environment? Yes, but it's not nearly as extensive as the moonbats want you to believe, and it's far shorter lived than they want you to know. However, if you think the raving moonbats, who are ignorant as hell about the "nature" they claim to love and cherish don't push ideas that are completely false at worst, and at best grossly exaggerated, then you are...uh...prone to believe the moonbat's emotionally charged bullshit...well, never mind. The single biggest negative impact of the "BP Disater"? The tourist scared off by the moonbats from the Gulf Coast, and the economic impact of same.
-
You actually do ignore shit like this: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=20863 (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=20863)
And this: http://www.mysanantonio.com/life/life_columnists/article/Natural-leaks-emit-oil-into-the-Gulf-of-Mexico-778985.php (http://www.mysanantonio.com/life/life_columnists/article/Natural-leaks-emit-oil-into-the-Gulf-of-Mexico-778985.php)
God made oil, not man. It's part of our environment. That is not to say it can't cause damage or that man needs to be releasing more in to the environment than God intended, but nature has a way to deal with it. It would be ideal if BP or Exxon wouldn't spill extra in to the oceans or Gulf. Is there an negative impact on the environment? Yes, but it's not nearly as extensive as the moonbats want you to believe, and it's far shorter lived than they want you to know. However, if you think the raving moonbats, who are ignorant as hell about the "nature" they claim to love and cherish don't push ideas that are completely false at worst, and at best grossly exaggerated, then you are...uh...prone to believe the moonbat's emotionally charged bullshit...well, never mind. The single biggest negative impact of the "BP Disater"? The tourist scared off by the moonbats from the Gulf Coast, and the economic impact of same.
You lost Chad with "God". He ain't a believer bro.
-
You lost Chad with "God". He ain't a believer bro.
That explains a lot. But he can simply insert "mother nature" where I wrote God, same meaning in this context.
-
That explains a lot. But he can simply insert "mother nature" where I wrote God, same meaning in this context.
His kind tend to go with Big Bang and really smart amoebas.
-
Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in BP Gulf oil spill litigation announces settlement in principle with BP
BySTAFF
BEASLEY ALLEN LEGAL NEWS
ShareThis
Date: March 5th, 2012
March 2, 2012 [New Orleans] — The Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (PSC) spearheading the litigation surrounding the 2010 BP Gulf Oil Spill today announced that a settlement in principle has been reached with BP that will fully compensate hundreds of thousands of victims of the tragedy. The settlement is to be fully funded by BP, with no cap on the amount BP will pay. BP is obligated to fully satisfy all eligible claims under the terms of the Court supervised settlement, irrespective of the funds previously set aside. The agreement will resolve the majority of private economic loss, property damage and medical injury claims stemming from the Gulf Oil Spill. The settlement will hold BP fully accountable to individuals and businesses harmed by the spill.
Stephen J. Herman and James P. Roy, Plaintiffs’ Co-Liaison Counsel said, “We are extremely pleased to bring justice to those harmed by the BP Gulf Oil Spill. This settlement will provide a full measure of compensation to hundreds of thousands — in a transparent and expeditious manner under rigorous judicial oversight. It does the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people.”
Two separate settlement agreements have been reached with BP. The first settlement compensates private economic losses due to the Gulf Oil Spill. These claims include businesses and individuals that lost profits; sustained damage to coastal property, wetlands and personal property; sustained real property sales losses; lost subsistence use; and have claims for failure to pay under BP’s Vessels of Opportunity Program. The second settlement compensates people with medical claims related to the spill and provides periodic medical consultation for the next 21 years. Claimants can participate in either or both settlement programs.
There will be no delay in the processing of economic loss claims while the heart of the claims process shifts to New Orleans, where Court supervision will ensure independence, fairness, transparency of process, and accountability. During the transition period claimants will be able to accept a percentage of their existing GCCF (Gulf Coast Claims Facility) offers while preserving their right to participate in the economic loss settlement.
“Under the new program, eligible claimants will generally be paid greater benefits than under the GCCF,” said Herman and Roy.
Details of the Settlement in Principle
Economic Loss Claims
Individuals and businesses that suffered financial losses from the oil spill will be compensated within a framework intended to encompass all economic losses reasonably related to the oil spill. It is presumed that losses suffered by businesses and individuals in close proximity to the Gulf Coast, or in the seafood industry, were caused by the oil spill without further proof. To account for the specific circumstances of other claimants, there are a variety of ways to demonstrate that losses were caused by the oil spill. There is no “one-size-fits-all.” The intent of the framework is to be inclusive.
Under the settlement, the formula for calculating the amount of compensation allows each claimant to select the months used to measure lost income or profits based on historical earnings. Most importantly, the formula allows claimants to recover for lost growth potential. Again, there is no “one size fits all.” Generally speaking, for claimants eligible for compensation, a Risk Transfer Premium (RTP) or “multiplier” will be used to account for ecological and economic uncertainty. The specific RTP multiplier depends on the location and nature of the claimant’s business.
Medical Benefits
The Medical settlement will potentially benefit hundreds of thousands of Gulf Coast residents and Clean-Up Workers who suffered acute or chronic illnesses from exposure to oil and chemical dispersants in the weeks and months after the oil spill. Residents in the coastal and wetlands areas of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and the Florida Panhandle will be compensated for a broad range of specific medical conditions such as respiratory, skin, stomach, headaches and a host of other ailments. At one end of the spectrum, Clean-Up Workers can submit a claim with a Declaration under penalty of perjury describing the conditions or symptoms after exposure even if they did not seek medical treatment at the time of exposure. At the other end, residents and workers who suffer chronic symptoms or conditions from exposure will be required to submit medical records from the time of exposure and for ongoing medical care. Coastal residents and Clean-Up Workers who experience future manifestation of illness retain the right to sue BP without proof of liability for the spill and exposure.
The settlement also establishes a periodic medical consultation program for 21 years for people affected by the spill to ensure access to appropriate healthcare throughout the Gulf Coast region. A grant of more than $100 Million will be used to establish a 5-year program to enhance access to physical and mental health care services in the Gulf Coast region—with an emphasis on integrated and sustainable community-based primary and mental health care and environmental and occupational health services. These services will benefit families in the entire region for years to come.
Affected Property Owners
Property owners and long-term lessees of waterfront properties in the affected coastal and wetlands region are eligible to receive compensation for loss of use and enjoyment of their property. This compensation was not available through the GCCF and recognizes that residents in the affected region were unable to fully enjoy their homes in the aftermath of the oil spill.
###
Contact: David Falkenstein (Sunshine Sachs) – falkenstein@sunshinesachs.com
-
Y'all need to stop picking on little AUJizzAss... He can't help the way he thinks, if you actually want to call it thinking. Seriously... I really enjoy trying to understand people like him. His own post was classic and had me :sad: as I browsed through it. Here's a quote that caught my attention...
In April 2011, one year from the onset of the spill, scientists confirmed that they had discovered oil on dead dolphins found along the Gulf Coast. Fifteen of the 406 dolphins that had washed ashore in the last 14 months had oil on their bodies; the oil found on eight of them was linked to the April 2010 BP oil spill. A NOAA spokesperson stated,"It is significant that even a year after the oil spill we are finding oil on the dolphins, the latest just two weeks ago."[271]
So, let me get this straight. Two years after the "worst environmental disaster [in] the US", of the 406 dolphins that washed ashore over the last 14 months, eight were directly linked to the BP oil spill. That's an environmental disaster???
Meanwhile, my buddies in the region are reporting the best fishing they've seen in years down there. I hear that the oil did have an effect on bluefin tuna, but they've been catching boatloads of blackfin, yellowfin and red snapper. Another buddy claimed that they had to cut their annual fishing trip in half because they had already caught their quota in the first few hours. So, is anybody up for a deep sea fishing trip this year? I'm thinking about heading down for a few outings this year.
-
Y'all need to stop picking on little AUJizzAss... He can't help the way he thinks, if you actually want to call it thinking. Seriously... I really enjoy trying to understand people like him. His own post was classic and had me :sad: as I browsed through it. Here's a quote that caught my attention...
So, let me get this straight. Two years after the "worst environmental disaster [in] the US", of the 406 dolphins that washed ashore over the last 14 months, eight were directly linked to the BP oil spill. That's an environmental disaster???
Meanwhile, my buddies in the region are reporting the best fishing they've seen in years down there. I hear that the oil did have an effect on bluefin tuna, but they've been catching boatloads of blackfin, yellowfin and red snapper. Another buddy claimed that they had to cut their annual fishing trip in half because they had already caught their quota in the first few hours. So, is anybody up for a deep sea fishing trip this year? I'm thinking about heading down for a few outings this year.
Fishing was great when I was down there last July. People were on the beach, in the surf, though not as many. No lines or waits to eat either. There were no tar balls on the beach, and no oil in the water according to those I heard.
-
Only on the X can a thread about a Democrat chick trashing a Republican wimmenz evolve into an oil spill and deep sea fishing.
BTDub...went out of Grayton Beach last July and caught what the Captain said was the biggest snapper he'd put in his boat in that area. He'd caught bigger going out to the oil rigs (See, it all comes back around) but we were about the limit, 12 miles out, that he takes that charter. Weighed 30 pounds and I felt like I was pulling a small truck off the bottom.
And, the cobia have started running now and we're trying to get up a trip in the next week or two. I'm pumped.
-
That explains a lot. But he can simply insert "mother nature" where I wrote God, same meaning in this context.
HEY! He prefers mother Gaia.
-
So, is anybody up for a deep sea fishing trip this year? I'm thinking about heading down for a few outings this year.
[\quote]
Start looking. I'm game. I have been missing our yearly that we had going there for a while.
-
Start looking. I'm game. I have been missing our yearly that we had going there for a while.
We can always call the Cap'n of the Finest Kind again. Let's figure out what he thinks the "best" time would be. I'll look around for others...